Wilhelm J. Meester

Regional marketing to change regional images: the example of the Groningen province campaign

Regional Marketing to Change Regional Images: The Example of the Groningen Province Campaign An important element in the urban and regional development strategy of many local and regional governments is geographical marketing. The process of geographical marketing combines promotional, spatial and organisational activities, and can be aimed at various groups. From 1989 onwards, the province of Groningen, in the northern part of the Netherlands, has pursued such a geographical marketing campaign. This campaign, which is still being carried on, has used various means of communication: advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and radio and television commercials. It has been aimed at entrepreneurs and at the general public as well. An ex ante study of the public image of Groningen was carried out in 1988, before the start of the campaign. For this purpose, a random sample of the Dutch population was inquired by telephone. Since then, similar inquiries were carried out every 2 years, in order to measure the ‘effects’ of the campaign. In these inquiries, the image of the provinces of Friesland and Noord- Brabant (considered as ‘competitors’ in the place marketing arena) was measured along with that of Groningen, and used for reference. The data set now reaches up to the year 2005. The availability of this kind of data for a period of 17 years, measured at regular intervals, provides a unique opportunity to study the development of regional images through time, and to find suggestions for the best possible way to continue the marketing campaign. In this paper, the data of the inquiries will be analysed. The first question to be answered in the paper relates to the pace and the nature of the changes in image, observed in all three provinces. The second research question specifically deals with the influence of the marketing campaign on the image of Groningen.

The Influence of Firm Characteristics

Research question 2 deals with the possible relation between the rating of locational environments on the one hand, and firm characteristics on the other. The demands that an entrepreneur makes on a location for his firm will depend partly on firm characteristics such as type of activity, firm size, and so on. Therefore, it is natural to assume that firm characteristics will also affect the rating of possible locations in terms of high and low.

Development over Time

An important aspect of the images that people have of persons, products, towns, regions, etc., is their dynamic nature. Like personal opinions, images are subject to permanent change (Harrison and Sarre 1976). Research question 6 deals with this change, specifically where it concerns the evolving locational preferences of entrepreneurs.

Rating of Locations

Now that we have made all the necessary choices regarding the research method, we are ready to answer the research questions. In this chapter, we turn our attention to questions 1, 4, and 5 (see Section 1.2). Research question 1 refers to the ratings given to locational environments in the Netherlands in terms of high and low. The question can be answered fairly simply by determining how the entrepreneurs rated the possible locations selected for the survey. In the same vein, we will examine how the pattern of ratings looks for the Northern Netherlands and for Germany. On that basis, we will be able to answer questions 4 and 5. In each of the three study areas, the most recent survey serves as the starting point. For the Netherlands as a whole, that is the survey of 1993; for the Northern Netherlands, it is that of 1997. The outcomes of these surveys have been presented earlier, respectively by Meester (1994) and Van Bokhorst et al. (1998). For Germany, we have to rely on the only survey that was held there, in 1996.

The Relation between Distance and Rating

Locational self-preference is a key element in the rating of locational environments, as has repeatedly been shown in this report. With regard to the rating of possible locations in terms of high or low scores, the current location, as a firm characteristic, proves to have a strong influence (Sections 6.2 and 6.3). Also with regard to important aspects of the locational environment, the rating of spatial elements given by local entrepreneurs is generally more positive than that given by entrepreneurs elsewhere, as revealed in Section 7.6. Locational self-preference takes another form too; it shows up in the fact that many entrepreneurs identify the ties with their own region as an independent location factor that plays an important role in the event that their firm should have to relocate (Section 7.5).

The Influence of Location Factors

In Chapter 5, it was shown how entrepreneurs rate possible locations in terms of high and low. Chapter 6 considered which characteristics of the subject - in this case, the firm — exert an influence on that rating. Next, the logical step would thus be to examine the influence of the characteristics of the object. This may be done by ascertaining which features of the spatial elements (be they towns or regions) determine how they are rated by the entrepreneurs. At this point, we have arrived at research question 3, which refers to this relation.

A Wider Perspective

Chapters 5 through 9 have been fully devoted to the core theme of this report: the locational preferences of entrepreneurs. But this implies that two of the research questions listed in Section 1.2 have not yet been answered: the question about the link with other aspects of image and the question of the link between spatial preferences and spatial behavior. In dealing with these questions in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 respectively, the locational preferences of entrepreneurs are being placed in a broader perspective.